Original Article
Disparities in major surgery for esophagogastric cancer among hospitals by case volume
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to characterize disparities among centers performing major surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer stratified by case volume.
Methods: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for cases of esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. Centers were compared based on number of cases during 2004–2013: low volume [1–99], middle [100–200], and high [>200].
Results: For esophagectomy, 17,547 patients were included; 73.5% were treated in low volume centers, 14.6% in middle, and 11.9% in high. For gastrectomy, 20,059 patients were included, with 87.5%, 8.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Patients treated at low volume centers were more likely to be of racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and have lower socioeconomic status. Overall survival (OS) was superior for patients treated at high volume centers. On multivariable analysis for either procedure, a higher number of disparate factors was identified in the low and middle volume centers compared to the high volume centers, which were associated with poorer OS.
Conclusions: This study identified higher numbers of disparate patient factors associated with low/middle volume centers compared to high volume centers, which were associated with worse OS, and further makes the case for performance of esophagectomy and total gastrectomy at high volume centers.
Methods: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for cases of esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. Centers were compared based on number of cases during 2004–2013: low volume [1–99], middle [100–200], and high [>200].
Results: For esophagectomy, 17,547 patients were included; 73.5% were treated in low volume centers, 14.6% in middle, and 11.9% in high. For gastrectomy, 20,059 patients were included, with 87.5%, 8.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Patients treated at low volume centers were more likely to be of racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and have lower socioeconomic status. Overall survival (OS) was superior for patients treated at high volume centers. On multivariable analysis for either procedure, a higher number of disparate factors was identified in the low and middle volume centers compared to the high volume centers, which were associated with poorer OS.
Conclusions: This study identified higher numbers of disparate patient factors associated with low/middle volume centers compared to high volume centers, which were associated with worse OS, and further makes the case for performance of esophagectomy and total gastrectomy at high volume centers.
